After a long absence, I am back by popular demand from my readership (Hi, John!).
The Washington Post previews the Bush Administration's fall campaign theme in a front page story. It's a familiar approach, attack war critics as "defeatist pansies." The story points out that this is the same approach that helped the Republicans win in both 2002 and 2004. What's a bit unfamiliar, is the skeptical tone of the reporting. Unsaid in the story is the role played by the media and helping the Republicans bamboozle the public into believing that failing to elect Republicans would put them at risk. In this story, however, there does seem to be a recognition that the reporter has a responsibility, not only to report the Administration's charges, but also to bring an element of truth into the discussion. To wit, this paragraph:
Pressed to support these allegations, the White House yesterday could cite no major Democrat who has proposed cutting off funds or suggested that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone. But White House and Republican officials said those are logical interpretations of the most common Democratic position favoring a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq.
Let's hope we'll be seeing more of this kind of journalism, rather than the "taking dictation" approach that has characterized past coverage.
